D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[pemerton]

Any game where you are interacting with the world instead of another player (GM doesn't count) or where every decision is not dictated by a small set of rules is for me going to be somewhat simulationist.

<snip>

Maybe my definition is meaningless to you. But you also claim D&D is not at all simulationist which I also disagree with.

I didn't claim D&D is not simulationist "at all". I said that 4e D&D has barely a nod to simulationism (in its positioning rules).

And when we're talking about RPGs, we're talking about games that of necessity involve a shared fiction. That's one of the few things they all have in common. So using that as a criteria for marking distinctions between them seems unhelpful.

Do you have experience playing RPGs that are not D&D or D&D-derived? If the answer is "no", then I'm not sure why you're so invested in labelling D&D using a term - simulationism - which has no purpose other than for comparing RPGs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This has already been answered in the thread, by @Campbell and maybe also @Ovinomancer. I'll try again!

Edwards inherited a three-fold distinction from earlier discussion. He changed the label "dramatism" to "narrativism" because the word "drama" already had a different meaning - Jonathan Tweet (the same one who designed 3E D&D) had used it, in his game Everway, to describe a type of resolution process (drama, karma, fortune - ie talking; comparing fixed values; rolling dice or drawing cards). From here:

The Threefold Model for role-playing included the term Dramatism, as presented by John Kim at his Threefold Model (http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/) webpage. When I learned about the Threefold, I'd already been thinking about stuff I'd later call Currency and also about Jonathan Tweet's discussion of resolution presented in Everway. The basic notion of the Threefold impressed me: it was time to talk about goals and priorities independently of everything else, then to see whether everything else flowed to and from them. This was at the time that Sorcerer was making its small way into commerce, so the mailing list was the place for our first discussions; most of them are archived at the Sorcerer website (http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com).​

​

At this point, since "Drama" as a resolution category in Tweet's schema and "Dramatism" as a goals-category in the Threefold referred to two different things, I decided that the names were confusing. Going by which set of ideas was first presented (Tweet's), I changed Dramatism to Narrativism. This terminological change was limited to discussions on the Sorcerer mailing list and later at the Gaming Outpost.​

​

However, our use of the terms and ideas on the Sorcerer mailing list took on its own character almost immediately​

As Edwards says, he is talking about goals and priorities. And as per @GMforPowergamers's query upthread, these are creative priorities - what is the aesthetic experience the RPGers are hoping to obtain? (Edwards also often uses the term "creative agenda" - in this usage, someone's "agenda" is the same as what someone prioritises - as in the phrase "hidden agenda", which means a hidden goal.)

Edwards identifies four main creative priorities in RPGing:

* Experiencing a metagame-free system in operation, unfolding an imagined world before your eyes ("purist for system simulation") - RuneQuest as presented and as typically played is the paradigm of this;​

​

* Experiencing a GM's presentation of a setting and/or story ("high concept simulation") - early WoD is the paradigm of this; 2nd ed AD&D had a lot of it too; I think that a lot of adventure path play is like this;​

​

* Playing well and/or testing your luck - "winning" the game, beating the dungeon, showing off your skill as a player - classic (Gygaxian) D&D is a paradigm of this; Tunnels & Trolls has a lot of this too; I think 3E had a lot of this too, in its approach to PC build ("optimisation") and combat resolution (finding and deploying "I win" buttons);​

​

* Addressing a theme/premise via play, the idea being to "challenge" the participants in relation to values or emotions, and to find out how they react and enjoy sharing those responses, in something like the way other "high" art forms do - Apocalypse World is a paradigm of this; so is Edwards's game Sorcerer; Greg Stafford's Prince Valiant is a much "lighter" example (melodrama rather than genuine drama).​

Because the first two are both about prioritising what the participants experience rather than what they bring to the process of play, Edwards puts them both in one of his three baskets - the simulationist one. But obviously they use very different techniques - RQ-type RPGing is all about the purity and robustness of the mechanics, and how they reveal the fiction without the need for curation or participant intervention; whereas "storytelling"-type RPGing often downplays mechanics and focuses on the GM's role as a curator and presenter of the fiction.

Edwards notes that the third and fourth priorities often use very similar techniques - fortune-in-the-middle resolution, for instance - but he keeps them separate because they are different in terms of creative priority.

A lot of discussion of RPGing on these boards runs together techniques - eg the use of metacurrency - and creative priorities: you can see this, for instance, in @Micah Sweet's post equating metacurrency with "narrativism". Edwards is fairly determined to keep these things separate, for analytical purposes, and his GNS labels are focused on creative priorities, not techniques.

Edwards is well aware that "GM decides" is a powerful technique, but he is interested in other techniques that can also reliably deliver particular sorts of RPGing. On these boards there is often an assumption that "GM decides" is the go-to solution for any tension between resolution mechanics, or PC build mechanics, and the desired play experience. That's fine as far as it goes, but within that context of discussion of course an analytical scheme that is interested in other possible techniques, and in the way participants other than the GM can generate the fundamentals of play, will of course not seem very useful.

In that case, my ideal game is about 2/3 the first definition of simulationism, and 1/3 gamist.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Tell me, please, where I can find the natural language definitions of any of those terms. They aren't in my particular dictionary. The best I could infer from general knowledge of English is that they mean, "something to do with narration/games/simulation", which is pretty vague.

We can use terms that don't require an advanced gaming degree, but when such terms have been put on the table for discussion—which they have been for this discussion—then those who know them are going to use them assuming they are known and understood by the participants.

If you'd like to provide alternate terminology/theory, I'd be happy to learn it, and maybe even use it, rather than complaining repeatedly about how I don't understand it and how I have no plans to learn it and we're speaking different languages so why do I even bother but I'm going to continue trying to derail the conversation anyhow.

The fact that a number of people in this thread are eager to discuss the topic but are unfamiliar and/or uncomfortable with the terminology others are trying to use tells me that GNS jargon might not be the best choice if you want more than a select few to participate.

 

[niklinna]

Narrativism to me means using mechanical levers to influence the game toward a particular story result, with an aim toward emulating a story genre. Metacurrency does this, as does any mechanic that allows a player to make decisions in game put of their PCs direct control.

There's a lot to unpack there, and perhaps more ground to cover, but that's a start.

The two are radically different! They shouldn't use the same term.

They are radically different, and they quite arguably shouldn't use the same term. But they also have some important things in common, and more importantly, the term is understood by those versed in GNS theory to apply to both.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's a lot to unpack there, and perhaps more ground to cover, but that's a start.


They are radically different, and they quite arguably shouldn't use the same term. But they also have some important things in common, and more importantly, the term is understood by those versed in GNS theory to apply to both.

We go back to what I said before then: do you want this discussion to be limited to just those with a solid understanding of GNS theory and its terminology, or not?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Narrativism to me means using mechanical levers to influence the game toward a particular story result, with an aim toward emulating a story genre. Metacurrency does this, as does any mechanic that allows a player to make decisions in game put of their PCs direct control.

So, hitpoints.

 

[pemerton]

I have significant experience in all versions of D&D, TSR Marvel, Fantasy Flight Star Wars, classic Traveler, Mutants & Masterminds, all versions of Cyberpunk, various Palladium games, and all versions of L5R, to name a few off the top of my head.

As presented in their rulebooks and typically played, and using the Forge terminology, most of those are either high concept simulationism (a lot of D&D, a lot of TSR Marvel, Star Wars, Cyberpunk, L5R) or else gamism (a lot of D&D, quite a bit of TSR Marvel, some approaches to Cyberpunk, a lot of Palladium). A given group might even move between the two priorities in a session of play.

High-concept sim is used to describe the approach to play where the GM is laying out the setting and story, and you're immersing in your PC, and imagining what is going on, and picking up on the GM's hooks and cues, and it's like being there.

Gamisim is used to describe the bit where the story falls away a bit, and everyone is rolling the dice and doing their best to beat the opponent/challenge the GM has put in front of you.

If you ever had the experience where the GM really wanted the players to enjoy their setting and story, but the players were more interested in building optimised PCs who could curb-stomp anything the GM threw at them, then you had what Edwards would call a clash of agendas: the GM was wanting to run a high-concept sim game; but the players were wanting to play a gamist game.

The one system you mentioned that I haven't commented on yet is Classic Traveller. There are different presentations of this - the 1977 version and the 1981 version. It's an early RPG so both are a bit "raw", especially the 1977 version. If you played Traveller in the form of roll up PCs, roll up a star map, and the PCs travel around the map trading and having encounters and sometimes getting into trouble, that was what Edwards calls "purist-for-system sim" - basically it's like inhabiting and exploring an imaginary sci-fi world, RuneQuest in space. But if your Traveller was more like the referee presenting patrons to your group, and you took the job and did the mission - basically a type of proto-Cyberpunk - then that would be high-concept sim.

I don't think Traveller is very satisfying for gamist RPGing because it doesn't have enough scope for the players to flex their "I win" muscles (unless you were playing super-gonzo with everyone getting battle dress and plasma guns and taking down the Imperium, or something like that!): if you ever had players who found Traveller a bit "boring" or not really giving them the chance to develop and do things with their PCs, that sounds like a bit of a clash of agendas between players who want something more gamist and the limits of Traveller in that respect.

I'll finish this part of my post by saying: we don't know one another outside of this forum, and all I've got to go on is your list of RPGs you've played, and your other posts that I've read. So the preceding is necessarily fairly general and broad-brush. If it doesn't resonate with you in any fashion at all, I guess it will reinforce you scepticism about the Forge terminology and analysis. But if any of it makes sense, or does kind-of fit with your experiences, it's not because I'm any kind of sage! It's because the Forge analysis is actually useful for understanding some of the basic trends and patterns in RPG design and RPG play.

I've played Apocalypse World a bit, enough to know how it works.

So you'd know, then, that AW is very different from (say) playing White Plume Mountain in D&D.

Here's one difference. In WPM, part of what the players are trying to do is minimise the risk to their PCs. Now, in reality no one wants zero risk because that would be boring. But the design of a module like WPM makes zero risk impossible in practical terms - eg it has a wandering monster table with wights on it! So one of the basic dynamics of play is the players trying to reduce all the risk they can, by clever dungeoneering, working out the traps and tricks, not getting surprised by all the monsters, etc. If the players are being clever about that, a GM who fudged things or introduced extra opposition because they thought the players had been getting things too easily would be tantamount to cheating.

Compare AW: when everyone looks to the GM to see what happens next, the GM's job is to make a soft move, unless either (i) a player has just got a 6 or less result on a move, or (ii) a player hands a golden opportunity to the GM - in those two cases, the GM can make as hard a move as they like. And a soft move is always a way of increasing the pressure on the PCs, and thus the players. A GM who doesn't make soft moves that amp up the pressure isn't doing their job. And the game will break as a result, because without soft moves there is no underpinning for hard moves that have to be made on those 6- results.

So GMing WPM and GMing AW are pretty different things. Part of the aspiration of the Forge analysis and terminology is to be able to talk about those differences.

Its the jargon terminology I have issue with. What does narrativist,gamist, and simulationist mean if its not the natural language definition, and why can't we just use terms that don't require an advanced gaming degree to discuss?

I don't think any of those terms have natural language meanings myself - perhaps "simulationism" does, meaning "being the goal or art of simulatiing something"? But not the other two.

For what they mean, see my post 176 upthread.

As to why we need jargon? If you want to talk about how Picasso differs from Monet differs from Michelangelo, you're going to need terminology. Probably my favourite sculpture is the Pieta in St Peters. I can explain a little bit what I find so astonishing about it: it's so modern, especially when compared to all the statues of Popes that can also be seen in St Peters. Part of what I see as modern in it is its sense of emotion, and resultant energy about to burst out: I can imagine Camus being moved by the Pieta, but not by any of those statues of Popes.

But the preceding paragraph is pretty limited. A serious art critic (I'm not one) would have the vocabulary - beyond words like "modern", "emotion", "energy" - to describe what it is that I'm seeing in the Pieta, and why it reminds me of sculpture made 400 years later (eg Rodin) more than of works contemporary to it.

The Forge terminology is trying to do something similar for RPG play and design. To really talk about what is involved in the play and GMing of AW, compared to WPM using AD&D, we need more terminology than just "player", "GM", "railroad" and "sandbox".

 

[niklinna]

The fact that a number of people in this thread are eager to discuss the topic but are unfamiliar and/or uncomfortable with the terminology others are trying to use tells me that GNS jargon might not be the best choice if you want more than a select few to participate.

I agree, but complaining that GNS jargon sucks and not providing an alternative doesn't help. Those people spent a lot of time and effort attempting to analyze role-playing games, and flawed as their efforts proved to be, they revealed a lot of useful stuff that has had a fair bit of influence on the hobby and the industry. Trying to co-opt terms of art that they established, and then not even define them, is also not cool.

We go back to what I said before then: do you want this discussion to be limited to just those with a solid understanding of GNS theory and its terminology, or not?

I'd love it if people with another theory participated! Name a theory, point us at it, or define it as you go, but provide one. Lacking that, those of use who do have a theory and terminology will use it, particularly since it was explicitly mentioned in the original post of this discussion. And since it was explicitly mentioned as fair for use in this discussion, the least you could do is not complain when we use it.

 

[Jer]

I'd love it if people with another theory participated! Name a theory, point us at it, or define it as you go, but provide one. Lacking that, those of use who do have a theory and terminology will use it, particularly since it was explicitly mentioned in the original post of this discussion. And since it was explicitly mentioned as fair for use in this discussion, the least you could do is not complain when we use it.

You have to be prepared to explain what you mean to people when they push back on the use of terms. You can't just throw up your hands and point them at an essay that is over 15 years old and the associated discussion that nobody has seriously engaged with in a decade at this point and expect people to understand that "when I say gamist I don't really mean 'like chess' I mean rpgs that emphasize victory in combat and short-term problem solving over narrative structure or trying to simulate a genre".

I do understand GNS theory and followed it quite a bit at the time and I thought at the time that the vocabulary used by the Forge was confusing and irritating. It's even moreso to people who don't understand that the terms you are using have definitions that don't match the natural language usage of the terms.

Gamist to non-Forge folks would mean "like a game". Simulationist would mean "like a simulation". And narrativist would mean "like a narrative". The fact that those terms in GNS theory don't really mean those natural language definitions is a communications problem for folks who want to talk about the theory to the people who don't already know it and accept what those terms mean.

It's like if I came in and made up the term "randomized" to describe games that have events that don't happen on a fixed schedule but instead occur when various pieces end up at the same place on a board at the same time. And I participated in a lot of forum discussions with people who accepted that definition and we created our own internal models around it and even more vocabulary about games similar to it. And then, 15 years later, I went into forum discussions and assumed everyone knew what I was talking about. If people got upset because they thought I was making claims about games that use dice or cards the problem would be with me for using a term that actually has a common meaning that isn't what my made up terminology defined it as.

One of the most irritating things about GNS Theory is that there are some good ideas in there - and some folks have been able to pull them out and do good things with them - but actually trying to talk about it to anyone who doesn't already understand it is an exercise in frustration.

 

[pemerton]

Narrativism to me means using mechanical levers to influence the game toward a particular story result

What you are describing here is a technique - a way of establishing the content of the shared fiction.

I don't think you've fully specified your technique. For instance, building my PC with a high Pick Pocket skills is the use of a mechanical lever to try and influence the game toward a particular story result, namely, pockets being successfully picked by my PC - but I dobut you'd call that "narrativism". I think you are meaning mechanical levers that are "pulled" at the point of resolution, to generate departures from raw dice rolls and their modification by pre-determined bonuses or circumstance-generated modifiers.

with an aim toward emulating a story genre.

Here you describe one goal that might be achieved by using the technique.

But here's another: in OGL Conan (published by Mongoose), a player can spend a Fate Point to create a minor advantage for their PC (eg if their PC is in prison, a servant working in the prison is a friend of a friend and so secretly brings the PC a dagger). That would most likely be used not with the aim of emulating a story genre, but with the aim of having the PC escape from prison. The fact that it somewhat resembles Conan stories is a plus - we are playing OGL Conan, after all! - but the player isn't aiming at genre emulation. That's just a byproduct.

Or consider a supers-type game, where the player spends the points so that their Iron Man-level PC can beat the Thanos-level NPC in the final confrontation. That's consistent with the genre - sometimes weaker heroes beat stronger villains - but the player's goal is to beat the challenge, not to emulate the genre.

Ron Edwards uses the labels simulationism, gamism and narrativism to describe overall creative/aesthetic goals, not particular techniques.

In that case, my ideal game is about 2/3 the first definition of simulationism, and 1/3 gamist.

For me, that is consistent with what I posted in my earlier reply to you (post 187, not far upthread).

One thing Edwards is interested in is talking about the problems people have with the RPGing, as a precursor to trying to solve those problems.

Edwards thinks that there are two sorts of problem you are likely to encounter: broken simulation, ie when the mechanics don't really do a good job of telling you what is happening in the fiction and so someone (probably the GM) has to step in and ad hoc patch things up; and "munchkin" players, who aren't interested in seeing the world unfold via the mechanics but just want to focus on beating the opposition. The worst problem, he thinks, is when those two problems come together: so a real munchkin or power-gamer who seizes on the broken simulations and uses them to break the game! That sort of player is likely to generate a lot of at-the-table conflict, as the GM has to step in and try and patch-as-they-go and/or put their foot down on the munchkin behaviour.

Again, if the previous paragraph doesn't resonate at all, that will reinforce your scepticism. If it does make sense, it demonstrates exactly why Edwards and friends were developing the terminology and framework that they did.